ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2017
How restaurant and bar owners view clean indoor air legislation five years after implementation in North Carolina, 2015.
Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSmoke-free policies are effective in eliminating health hazards that can lead to chronic diseases and premature death. How hospitality businesses experience clean indoor air policies may provide leverage in States that have not adopted such policies. This study assessed whether North Carolina restaurants and bars receive complaints and/or experience benefits five years after implementation of the State's smoke-free law.
methodsA 2015 mail survey was used to assess problems, benefits, and voluntary policies (i.e., policies related to the use of electronic cigarettes indoors and outside smoke-free seating areas) among restaurant and bar owners/managers. The survey yielded 135 responses for a response rate of 20.3%.
resultsThe two most frequently selected benefits among respondents were customers breathing less tobacco smoke (65.2%) and fewer complaints about secondhand smoke (58.5%). The majority of restaurants (79.7%) and bars (71.4%) reported experiencing at least one benefit from the law. Restaurants were significantly more likely than bars to restrict the use of electronic cigarettes inside. No significant difference was found between restaurants and bars in smoke-free outdoor customer areas. Bars were more likely to report problems with the smoke-free law (e.g. lack of outdoor space for smoking, compliance issues).
conclusionsThis study reveals successes of North Carolina's smoke-free law. The majority of respondents reported experiencing at least one benefit of the law and some reported that they had implemented additional voluntary policies. Learning more about how hospitality businesses experience smoke-free laws can help other states and communities deal with similar policy changes in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.